Thread: Misconceptions made by (some, and not necessarily most) theists

I wanted to take the liberty of listing some of the common misconceptions that I run into in religious debate and wanted to bring a few of them up here and for us all to share our own misconceptions that we encounter, then discuss them perhaps:

Evolution:

Evolving from monkeys.
-We didn't evolve from monkeys, monkeys and humans share a common ancestor.
Random Evolution.
-Evolution was not random, it was due to non-random selection and occasionally random mutation.
Missing links.
-There are some missing links but are not significant as to completley satisfy the thinking of evolution deniers you would need the skulls of every consecutive generation of human beings and their ancestors in our evolution to satisfy them. Even then some would perhaps still deny evolution.
Dating methods.
-Some argue that dating methods are inaccurate not only to fossils but also extending this argument to geology, that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. When in fact there are many dating methods and many of them point to the same age of the earth, and to fossils.

Physics:

The Big Bang and its point like existence (something from 'nothing')
-The universe did not come from nothing, all the universe existed as a 0-dimensional point in which its entirety as you see it today was contained.
'Who' created the universe?
-A common question asked by theists in particular, believing that 'intelligence' made the universe, this comes onto my point below:
What came 'before' the universe?
-Nothing as there was no time, all the dimensions came from the big bang in which there would have been no 'before' the big bang. A common analogy of this is asking what is north of the north pole.

I want to bring these up specifically because I personally encounter them all the time in religious debate. Now there are solutions to these questions that people often unaware of the answers bring up.

What are the misconceptions you encounter often? Are there any people are making about each other and not just scientific ones?

Some misconceptions I hear often:

1. The human eye is too complicated to randomly just come into being and scientists don't understand how the eye works.

2. Humans didn't suddenly come from monkeys and fish.

3. Evolution means that life and everything "just happened" by magic, and is a cop-out simplistic explanation.

4. Evolution means that stuff just randomly assembled itself into complex animals.

5. Humans are not animals.

I could go on forever.

Can you share some more you have? I am interested in them I would like to create a blog or website of sorts where people can get together and use this information as as source for their debate and discussions. I want to explain all of these misconceptions scientifically. Do you have anymore?

- The Bible exists. God wrote the Bible, so God must exist.

- Appearances of Holy Mary on toast/ windows/ walls/ your mom.

- People were always people. We cannot see evolution take place, hence it doesn't happen.

- Christianity is the original religion and other religions (especially pre-Christian) were misguided ideas before Jesus taught them the truth.

- Dinosaurs either existed alongside with modern humans, or dinosaur fossils were put there by Satan to make God angry and make people think that the earth is more than 6000 years old.

- Science is a religion and scientists don't listen to biblical "reason".

gee
you guys sure run with a lunatic crowd

Originally Posted by sculptor

gee
you guys sure run with a lunatic crowd

Thanks for the input. lol

Originally Posted by sculptor

gee
you guys sure run with a lunatic crowd

Very perceptive comment.
I wonder if there is an other side of the coin?
Could we describe it objectively?

Could we describe it objectively?

no
(or at least not likely)

it started off with one whole bus load of stinking bias.
counterpoint?

(wild guess du jour)
there ain't no such thing as an objective view of theism
or, at least it's awful damned rare.

from what I've seen
the view is either subjective
or "objective" with a very peculiar form of objectivity
It's a bit like someone standing to the north east of my latest creation, and staring intently to the north east, and thinking that they have an objective view of my latest creation, and claim,(quite rightly) that they can't see anything.

I suspect that I came at it very objectively, but with the concept that the thing I sought actually existed, but had been badly explained by poor fools much like the 3 blind men and the elephant.
once found
I stepped through the cosmic vagina(Castaneda), and found a different perspective
which by it's positioning, must needs be described as subjective

Does anyone else have the feeling you shouldn't be alive? Out of all that matter, out of all those probablities here I am listening to this.

no
you do?

Does anyone else have the feeling you shouldn't be alive? Out of all that matter, out of all those probablities here I am listening to this.

No. But I do have the feeling that I am unbelievably lucky to be here at all. The odds against being born are pretty high, something like 70-80% of conceptions never make it to birth of a live baby. The odds against conception in the first place, let alone any particular conception, are even higher. Taken all together, the odds against any one of us having the chance to live the lives we do are astronomical. When anyone tells you to count your blessings, that should be the first one.

I take life as a given fact.
It won't last
but while it exist for me,
there are lots of other things to think about
many I've known are dead now
and many a sexual encounter (most actually--well over 99%) didn't lead to procreation

..................(this could drift into a "meaning of life" discussion)

Originally Posted by Quantime

Does anyone else have the feeling you shouldn't be alive? Out of all that matter, out of all those probablities here I am listening to this.

My environment nor probability matters ...I AM surprised that I exist. Is it a paradox of sort?
I really dont see that it is... But isnt THAT a paradox...etcetera etcetera

EDIT: I dont think I had a low probability! Its the opposite really.
The low number comes from demanding that I had to be me...
But thats not necessary at all
I cuold as easily have been you and you me...if you get my point.
What real difference except raising the probability a notch would it make?
Then continue the induction and youre a high probability event...Sorry!

Originally Posted by sculptor

I take life as a given fact.
It won't last
but while it exist for me,
there are lots of other things to think about
many I've known are dead now
and many a sexual encounter (most actually--well over 99%) didn't lead to procreation

..................(this could drift into a "meaning of life" discussion)

So what IS the meaning of life?!

So what IS the meaning of life?!

The OP is about identifying the misconceptions of theists. It's not an invitation to a discussion as though a theist might have started it.

Following this course would be yet another derail of a perfectly innocent discussion.

derail

without derailers, or derailleurs
yer stuck in one gear
ofttimes
derailing allows the mind to switch gears
and adjust speed to power nicely

Originally Posted by sculptor

derail

without derailers, or derailleurs
yer stuck in one gear
ofttimes
derailing allows the mind to switch gears
and adjust speed to power nicely

Eh..."Derail"?? English is my second language. Means being mean or what?

Originally Posted by adelady

So what IS the meaning of life?!

The OP is about identifying the misconceptions of theists. It's not an invitation to a discussion as though a theist might have started it.

Following this course would be yet another derail of a perfectly innocent discussion.

Oh dear me! WHAT a mistake!
Sorry OP! Didnt mean to do you any harm!
The mobber Sculptor inspired me.
Go on bashing theists!
They probably deserve all insults they can get.
The meaning of life is to mob somebody?

Derailleur gears are a variable-ratio transmission system commonly used on bicycles, consisting of a chain, multiple sprockets of different sizes, and a mechanism to move the chain from one sprocket to another. Although referred to as gears in the bike world, these bicycle gears are technically sprockets since they drive or are driven by a chain, and are not driven by one another.

Modern front and rear derailleurs typically consist of a moveable chain-guide that is operated remotely by a Bowden cable attached to a shifter mounted on the down tube, handlebar stem, or handlebar. When a rider operates the lever while pedalling, the change in cable tension moves the chain-guide from side to side, "derailing" the chain onto different sprockets.
...........................
ok
that was actually meant as humor
oops
...................................
back to misconceptions
the most common misconception seems to be assuming that your religion has a better handle on just exactly what the(a?) diety is, and who will win it's favor.................

Originally Posted by sculptor

Derailleur gears are a variable-ratio transmission system commonly used on bicycles, consisting of a chain, multiple sprockets of different sizes, and a mechanism to move the chain from one sprocket to another. Although referred to as gears in the bike world, these bicycle gears are technically sprockets since they drive or are driven by a chain, and are not driven by one another.

Modern front and rear derailleurs typically consist of a moveable chain-guide that is operated remotely by a Bowden cable attached to a shifter mounted on the down tube, handlebar stem, or handlebar. When a rider operates the lever while pedalling, the change in cable tension moves the chain-guide from side to side, "derailing" the chain onto different sprockets.
...........................
ok
that was actually meant as humor
oops

This swede aint laughing...Perhaps next time

Originally Posted by adelady

So what IS the meaning of life?!

The OP is about identifying the misconceptions of theists. It's not an invitation to a discussion as though a theist might have started it.

Following this course would be yet another derail of a perfectly innocent discussion.

This seems to be more and more common, what happened to the array of moderators we had? I know the scientific study of religion moderator has not been around for a while and it seems as though a lot of moderators are being quite lenient, I'm not sure if this is just me though. It would be interesting to see the boundaries on what is acceptable behaviour and what is not or an update these days as trolling posts or random off-topic 'joking' gains momentum in threads. I'm all for a bit of humour but sometimes a whole thread can be ruined because of a certain number of peoples responses.

One example of this is my wanting to reply to Strange in the 'The pure theist is rare' thread, to which after a week or two off the forum noticed that it had escalated between trolling and a bit of flaming with some ad hominem attacks going back and forth, I summise that Kalster shut it down for very good reasons, but it frustrated me a bit afterwards and it just seems to me that some members here aren't willing to discuss science or scientific study and just incite pointless off-topic dribble. I'm not condemning Kalsters choice I'm agreeing wtih it, I am just a bit upset with the trolls. Thank you to the members here who contributed to my question it has helped me, and thank you adelady for your stand in I appreciate it.

Quantime, we will be making some policy changes in the new year in an effort to stamp down on the kind of nonsense that has been ruining threads the last while. We'll see how that goes.

Originally Posted by "sigurdV

Go on bashing theists!
They probably deserve all insults they can get.
The meaning of life is to mob somebody?

This thread isn't about bashing theists, it is about naming and talking about common misconceptions among theists. It is not meant as an anti-theist propaganda piece, nor will it be allowed to develop into one. It is not meant to imply that these misconceptions are found in all theists, nor meant to imply that atheists are free of misconceptions about theists. Please stick to the topic.

A common misconception among theists seems to be that we universally look down upon theists. This is not the case and certainly not the case for me. There have been and are many theists I have a great amount of admiration for that are much greater men and women than I will ever be. Also, I'd guess that most atheists were theists themselves at one point in their lives, so they do have an understanding of the "mind of a theist". We understand how easy it is to believe once you let yourself. I certainly remember how it felt, what I gained from that experience and all the rest of it. Don't just assume we are all a bunch of know-it-alls who waist no waking moment making fun of the "stupid" theists.

Theists often have very inaccurate ideas about why atheists moved away from theism. These include rejection of god out of a desire for freedom to do as we please (though these do happen), a rejection due to a tragic event (though these do happen) and all sorts of convoluted reasons. The vast majority of atheists I have spoken to have emerged into atheism through an honest process of looking at how real god and the tenets of a particular religion really are; through looking at the the truth of the Bible and the negative effects a belief in a particular god have had on their lives. I still remember how I felt upon discovering a celebrities atheism and the kind of assumption I made about them. I am ashamed of that now. My best friend is convinced that I will one day find my way back to Jesus and that I became atheist due to some nondescript event that pulled me away from god. He is still my best friend.

Another one seems to be that all the science contradicting the Bible or their particular holy text is part of some anti-theist conspiracy and are essentially made up. They have very little understanding of the scientific method and are very unwilling indeed to learn. It is very difficult to deal with these people. You often see debates between a scientist/atheist and a fundamentalist where if you asked the audience afterwords who had won, they would almost invariably say that the fundamentalist did. That is because it is very difficult to counter points riddled with logical fallacies with logic, because the fundamentalist and the apologist crowd, either dishonestly or honestly, don't have the necessary faculties to understand the basic science and/or the logical counterpoints to the fallacies. And the same goes on with indirect conflicts, like the opposing websites of either side. The sheer volume of nonsense that can be found of huge sites like discovery.org is astounding, but even more astounding is the number of people who fall for it.

(wild guess du jour)
the defensive posture indicates a lack of conviction
............
If i know a heart pine plank out weighs a sapwood pine plank, no amount of contradiction upsets me.

If you ain't sure of something, but speak as though you are sure, then you have your own fears to battle as well as any disparaging remarks.

and
if you have these fears to battle too often, then the likelyhood of not knowing what you do know increases.

05a4782b0942d4b907ce8aff37a251fa.png

What defensive posture?

not you dad

A defensive posture is one that feels threatend. I do feel very threatened that wherever I turn on TSF there are pseudo intellectual trolls awaiting in the next thread. Although I have been tactful and patient with many of them for some time, it is getting rather tiresome, this might be limited to just me but others may feel the same too I do not know. I am being polite about my concerns and you could call it defensive yes. I feel the need to defend my contributions to the forum and what I can learn from others as perhaps they from me, I thrive on it and I love being here, sharing ideas with people and discussing science.

Maybe I am being a bit over defensive but the question is, is that the response that you are wanting from your fellow debaters?

Originally Posted by Quantime

I wanted to take the liberty of listing some of the common misconceptions that I run into in religious debate and wanted to bring a few of them up here and for us all to share our own misconceptions that we encounter, then discuss them perhaps:

I’m still waiting for Richard Dawkins to spit out his drink the next time he has to hear another theist point to him that Hitler was an evil atheist. From what I understand Hitler was not an atheist. But even if he was, so what? I believe this is usually countered with the Spanish inquisition were also evil and, as were, the child abuse cover ups of the catholic church. It’s a pointless argument, and the theist quickly moves on to his next point.

But just saying, on your first points you focus a lot of attention on Evolution. Most people in Ireland are theist (according to our census), but I’ve never meet a theist in Ireland who openly doesn’t believe in evolution. Evolution is taught in school scientifically and creationism isn't part of any curriculum. I’m sure we have some creationists out there, but this seems to be dominantly an American phenomena.

I’ve never meet a theist in Ireland who openly doesn’t believe in evolution.

Catholics generally don't have much of a problem with the ideas of science. (At least not nowadays.) They certainly don't try to prevent children from learning geology, astronomy or biology as some 'young earth' creationists do.

Originally Posted by adelady

I’ve never meet a theist in Ireland who openly doesn’t believe in evolution.

Catholics generally don't have much of a problem with the ideas of science. (At least not nowadays.) They certainly don't try to prevent children from learning geology, astronomy or biology as some 'young earth' creationists do.

Hopefully theyll get secular eventually.

long ago and far away
I found myself standing on the raised stage in a catholic church for the christening of my niece-----------so i asked my brother
"how's the vasectomy feeling?"

poor guy was somewhat embarassed, and he said (in hushed urgency), "Do you realize where you are standing?"

secular, but wanting to maintain the image

Originally Posted by Quantime

What came 'before' the universe?
-Nothing as there was no time, all the dimensions came from the big bang in which there would have been no 'before' the big bang. A common analogy of this is asking what is north of the north pole.

um..

no proof of no time before big bang..
inflation/collapse/inflation theory sugests a time before big bang..

misconceptions of both parties:
Bible is unerring (i have heard lots of atheists argue from the bible..)
garden of eden is a punishment..
think there is an actual end point to this debate...
assume they know what the other person thinks..
use the same logic fallicies to try and support their argument..

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

um..

No need to be passive aggressive.

no proof of no time before big bang.

Evidence of our understanding of the cosmos implies that there was no time, for one entropy reaches its bare minimum into a perfect state, also there is an incredible amount of more space due to expansion of the universe, since space and time are equivalent this also means that there is more time. The Big bang is postulated from observation to have been a 0-Dimensional point which then grew into the dimensions we recognize. Seeing as time is the 4th dimension, it could not exist as all that was, was a 0-dimensional point.

misconceptions of both parties:
Bible is (i have heard lots of atheists argue from the bible..)

If you have heard Atheists use the bible as 'evidence' then they aren't atheist or even scientists.

What is a misconception about scientific evidence?

garden of eden is a punishment..

The Catholic Church itself now renounces the existence of the garden of Eden, and now explains that it is probably 'a metaphor'.

think there is an actual end point to this debate...

So long as ignorance continues and god hides himself (the last part was a joke, there is no god).

assume they know what the other person thinks..

Pointless and won't solve anything as this is currently impossible.

use the same logic fallicies to try and support their argument.

There is nothing fallacious about scientific evidence, there is however with biblical claims backed by no evidence.

Originally Posted by Quantime

So long as ignorance continues and god hides himself
(the last part was a joke, there is no god).

Hi!
Perhaps you never saw this argument before:

(0) Definition: By "god" is meant the cause of Existence.
(1) For every x there is a (not identical to x) cause of x.
(2) There is Existence.
(3) There is a god.

I once made it up to tease both theists and atheists... But theists ignore it since they think they know so much more about god than can be known through this proof. The atheists tend to react rather wildly... to express it kindly

Originally Posted by sigurdV

(0) Definition: By "god" is meant the cause of Existence.

No, not at all. In religious argument yes but we are scientific and based on evidence. The universe came into existence by spontaneity.

(1) For every x there is a (not identical to x) cause of x.

Only where there exists causality, as I have already said, 0 dimensions = no 4th dimension = no time. No time = no causality.

(2) There is Existence.

Depends on the frame you are referencing, a 0 dimensional point that was everything could be classed as existence, but existence of what?

(3) There is a god.

Only based on the acceptance of your previous reasoning which I have no informed you is false. Therefore, there is no god.

B.B.

?

one day in the future might (will?) the bangers(BB guys) be considered a primitive cult?

Originally Posted by Quantime

no proof of no time before big bang.

Evidence of our understanding of the cosmos implies that there was no time, for one entropy reaches its bare minimum into a perfect state, also there is an incredible amount of more space due to expansion of the universe, since space and time are equivalent this also means that there is more time. The Big bang is postulated from observation to have been a 0-Dimensional point which then grew into the dimensions we recognize. Seeing as time is the 4th dimension, it could not exist as all that was, was a 0-dimensional point.

bold indicates not proof..
i am not argueing the opposite..i am just arguing no empirical proof..
the time before the big bang will not be proven there is only conjecture,hypothosis, and belief.
there is multiple theories (probably not using the term properly,) about the origin of the universe..non have been empiricly proven.sure there is consensus..but consensus is belief not proof..

this is what i am talking about..both parties do this.

misconceptions of both parties:
Bible is unerring(i have heard lots of atheists argue from the bible..)

If you have heard Atheists use the bible as 'evidence' then they aren't atheist or even scientists.

What is a misconception about scientific evidence?

didnt say they use it as evidence..
nor anything about scientific evidence..

garden of eden is a punishment..

The Catholic Church itself now renounces the existence of the garden of Eden, and now explains that it is probably 'a metaphor'.

hehe..probably?...IMO it is..

think there is an actual end point to this debate...

So long as ignorance continues and god hides himself (the last part was a joke, there is no god).

ignorance..both sides..
no God?
my point..ignorance refuses to see him.

assume they know what the other person thinks..

Pointless and won't solve anything as this is currently impossible.

correct..
but even you do it..
i seen this by your responses to my comments..you assume i believe the same as others..so you assume i 'think' the same way as other believers..

use the same logic fallicies to try and support their argument.

There is nothing fallacious about scientific evidence, there is however with biblical claims backed by no evidence.

see..i didnt say anything about scientific evidence..

i was talking logic falicies..
like: Ig God exists he would do X..
If God exist he would make himself empirical..
There is no evidence for God therefore God does not exist..
there is no proof that God created the electron therefore God doesn't exist..
scientific evidence will confirm or deny the existence of God..

Originally Posted by Quantime

I wanted to take the liberty of listing some of the common misconceptions that I run into in religious debate and wanted to bring a few of them up here and for us all to share our own misconceptions that we encounter, then discuss them perhaps:

Evolution:

Evolving from monkeys.
-We didn't evolve from monkeys, monkeys and humans share a common ancestor.
Random Evolution.
-Evolution was not random, it was due to non-random selection and occasionally random mutation.
Missing links.
-There are some missing links but are not significant as to completley satisfy the thinking of evolution deniers you would need the skulls of every consecutive generation of human beings and their ancestors in our evolution to satisfy them. Even then some would perhaps still deny evolution.
Dating methods.
-Some argue that dating methods are inaccurate not only to fossils but also extending this argument to geology, that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. When in fact there are many dating methods and many of them point to the same age of the earth, and to fossils.

Physics:

The Big Bang and its point like existence (something from 'nothing')
-The universe did not come from nothing, all the universe existed as a 0-dimensional point in which its entirety as you see it today was contained.
'Who' created the universe?
-A common question asked by theists in particular, believing that 'intelligence' made the universe, this comes onto my point below:
What came 'before' the universe?
-Nothing as there was no time, all the dimensions came from the big bang in which there would have been no 'before' the big bang. A common analogy of this is asking what is north of the north pole.

I want to bring these up specifically because I personally encounter them all the time in religious debate. Now there are solutions to these questions that people often unaware of the answers bring up.

What are the misconceptions you encounter often? Are there any people are making about each other and not just scientific ones?

Sorry man, I loved what you said about the physics and the big bang theory (not the show) which I can't stand to watch (I'd rather get shot first)
I too feel the same way, that there had to be something there in order to create something.... Lets use human life as a model for the universe and the reason I use this model is that I see them somewhat similar in growth paterns only.... Using this model a new lifeforms in the womb of the mother, not from nothing but from a embryo which took other cells and use them as food to grow.... And one day you have a fully grown human being independent of its mother.... And as this being grows older it looses weight (mass) and comes to the end of its life cycle in which it returns back to cycle where food was formed for the new life to use for it existance.... This exact model is the model for the entire universe, its perfect in its form from begining to end and totally recycles itself.... Nature leaves its signature everywhere yet man can not conceive it....

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

Originally Posted by Quantime

no proof of no time before big bang.

Evidence of our understanding of the cosmos implies that there was no time, for one entropy reaches its bare minimum into a perfect state, also there is an incredible amount of more space due to expansion of the universe, since space and time are equivalent this also means that there is more time. The Big bang is postulated from observation to have been a 0-Dimensional point which then grew into the dimensions we recognize. Seeing as time is the 4th dimension, it could not exist as all that was, was a 0-dimensional point.

bold indicates not proof..

Evidence is the basis for all scientific theories to them being as close to 100% fact as possible. Evolution has overwhelming evidence, general relativity has overwhelming evidence and so does the big bang theory. Evidence is the reason we have clean water, the automobile, aeroplanes, satellite navigation, MRI scanners. God however, has zero.

'Implies' is a suggestion to the fact based on the evidence and observation:
1. There are is so much evidence for gravitation that it implies it is the reason we orbit the sun. We have so much evidence the implied postulate is fact.
2. The evidence for evolution implies animals evolve over time, we check that implication with evidence and we find the truth. Animals do evolve over time. Fact.

Evidence is the factual confirmation of implications and postulates from observation. The big bang theory has plenty of evidence as well which backs up implications and postulates. Evolution is called a theory, Quantum Theory is called, a theory. It may have the name 'theory' but they are both fact. Why? Because theory means the study of theories with evidence. Relativity theory for instance as well. This is a common misconception people don't grasp.

i am not argueing the opposite..i am just arguing no empirical proof..

There is empirical proof, as I have already stated above.

the time before the big bang will not be proven there is only conjecture,hypothosis, and belief.

They said the same about evolution, evidence from observation comes along and proves or another theory disproves the other. As I have already stated, the hypothesis is verified by evidence, the theory that there was no time is a logical conclusion if you understand cosmology and physics. I can go into detail here if you wish.

there is multiple theories (probably not using the term properly,) about the origin of the universe..non have been empirically proven.sure there is consensus..but consensus is belief not proof..

Indeed, but one of them is correct, and not all aspects of each theory will either thusly become incorrect either. But the theory that there was no time before the big bang is becoming more and more accepted based on the observations we have from the universe, this is evidence to the theory based on other observations that the universe is expanding which means the universe was incredibly small at one point down to the Planck Length, before that is where we get a unification of the fundamental forces of interaction inf Quantum Physics and the dimensions break down, which again implies no time. If you understood the subject you would see this, again I am willing to go into more detail.

this is what i am talking about..both parties do this.

I have to disagree, science has empirically proven a great deal, religion and faith however, has not.

didnt say they use it as evidence..
nor anything about scientific evidence..

Then don't imply, if your reply was not implying the kind, kindly make sure in future to rephrase how you say it as it sounded like you were trying to say that atheists argue using the bible, which is clearly not so, and if they do like I said they are not scientific which is the whole basis of this discussion.

no God?
my point..ignorance refuses to see him.

No ignorance does not refuse to see him, nor does science. If you provide evidence for God we will accept God. That is the simple premise. If you believe science is ignorant in that it will not accept anecdotal evidence from 'believers' then you are right, science is ignorant in that respect, but replace the word ignorant with 'skeptical and requesting empirical evidence' To which I believe you have already mentioned theists do not do.

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

assume they know what the other person thinks..

Originally Posted by Quantime

Pointless and won't solve anything as this is currently impossible.

correct..
but even you do it..
i seen this by your responses to my comments..you assume i believe the same as others..so you assume i 'think' the same way as other believers..

I respond to what you say in your post, there was hardly a context for me to go on as you tend:
to post often
like this causing a lot of
confusion as to if you are replying to me
or just making redundant points
or just talking to yourself.
Perhaps people do that often
Or is it a trick of the mind?

You often talk in riddles due to your incoherent posting style, please stick to paragraphs, grammar, punctuation and context so people can understand what you are saying. That way they won't get confused with what you are trying to portray.

There is no evidence for God therefore God does not exist..

There is no evidence for God therefore we cannot 'assume' God exists. In the same way we assume there is no Santa Claus, fairies, elves, dwarves on the same grounds, because there is no evidence.

there is no proof that God created the electron therefore God doesn't exist..

That's ridiculous to say that. Science finds something from observation, supports it with evidence until it becomes accepted through rigorous peer review and refuting efforts.

Saying there is no proof that God created the electron means there is no proof for Gods existence, is the same as saying that because there is no proof Santa made Jupiter therefore Santa does not exist is ridiculous. This is the whole 'burden of proof' argument, and why science doesn't go into saying 'there is no god because, x" Science minds its own damn business and when theists start a debate and claim God science says: Prove it. It is not up to science to prove or disprove God but the people that claim his existence. Then with time science discovers new wonders of the universe which then make biblical claims sound impossible and ridiculous. Adam and Eve for instance was once accepted to be truth, now it is not. Five hundred years ago you and I would believe that Adam and Eve were real people and this is my point, evidence comes along and makes science stand tall to which with its evidence, proves claims and makes other claims seem ridiculous. As time passes and our understanding of the universe improves it seems more and more unlikely that God does not exist, or seems ridiculous to say he 'exists' based purely on the fact that 'exist' is such a complex word scientifically for it to be taken seriously and used in that context by people who have absolutely NO understanding of the cosmos!

'God seems infeasible because x doesn't need God.

This is true, and as time has progressed x, y, z, a, b, c all are pointing to there not needing to be a God. Which we don't accept anyway, this is the point I am making. Religion and faith come along and suddenly science has to be the one pointing out how God doesn't exist because of x, y, z etc. If anything when scientists do this its actually out of them being so sick and tired of the 'we don't need to prove god' that we are going into the territory of having to point out the fallacies in faith, when the bottom line is they are making the claim and they have to prove it.

scientific evidence will confirm or deny the existence of God..

I don't think this will ever be 100% true, to confirm God scientifically would be Godlike in of itself. So far we have the suggestion that god does not exist which is far easier to confirm than the former. Faith will never be able to prove God which is exactly why they conveniently chose that word.

In time more science will discover new parts of reality and the universe which will make more and more of the biblical and faith claims preposterous until hopefully we abandon the notion of God and move on from this childish, insecure and ignorant worldview that throws its arms up to understanding because it is too ignorant or insecure to accept the facts.

Good day sir.

Quantime:

as far as my posting style..

I am an armchair scientist..i follow scientific america and discover magazines..
i do have a basic understanding of science..
i do understand some of the more complex sciences..

life has gotten in the way of pursuing any science related carreers (hind sight says i would not have lasted long in the field anyway)

i did manage to get an associate in electronics degree, but was not able to utilize it fully..

my ADHD tends to have me overthink alot of things..
sometimes that shows up in my posts, with what appears to be disjointed thoughts..
i tend to post my thoughts in a condensed manner..i assume ppl know more than they do..
and yes my own humanity can sometimes get the better of me..forgive me in advance..


but..
i argue that as a scientist (and personal considerations) arent you responsible for making sure that you do not misunderstand? (im not saying you don't, just a comment on your comment about my 'style')

AND
alot of what you posted is saying the exact same thing i am...
it seems to me that you are intelligent and thorough in your communication style..its just flavored with a 'Aint no one gonna convince me God exists' flavor..IOW there have been several times where you conviently omitted a word or two of mine and have changed a couple to make it seem like my point was against yours when it was not..

im not trying to prove that God exists..i believe that there is no such proof..(which is where i am arguing from)(no proof..not no God..)
it is not my responsibility to provide you with proof of God existence..
(how can i? proof doesn't exist..)

well..at least in the terms of absolutes..(see objective vs subjective)

I chose this statement to raise a good example of how much time and effort debating God and to also show that people are hardheaded that they must invent new names for a supreme being for which theres no proof exist.... And that full on wars and millions lives have been lost over such arguments, and after reading some of names of god here which far exeed the number of langauges on the earth.... I'll then make a minor point....

Names of God, or Holy Names, describe a form of addressing God present in liturgy or prayer of various world religions. Prayer involving the Holy Name or the Name of God has become a part of both Western and Eastern spiritual practices. A number of traditions have lists of many names of God, many of which enumerate the various qualities of the Supreme Being.
The English word "God" is used by multiple religions as a noun or name to refer to different deities.
Ancient cognate equivalents for the word "God" include proto-Semitic el, Hebrew elohim (God or/of gods), Arabic 'ilah (a or the God), and Biblical Aramaic 'Elaha (God). The personal or proper name for God in many of these languages may either be distinguished from such attributes, or homonymic. For example, in Judaism the Holy Name is sometimes related to the ancient Hebrew ehyeh (I will be). In Hinduism the term Brahman or Parabrahman is often used or it is also symbolized by the word Om (pronounced 'Oum') , while, in other cases, the proper name for a deity is given special significance as a true name of God or incorporated from earlier beliefs, as in the case of the Native American appellation Gitche Manitou.
Correlation between various theories and interpretation of the Name of God, used to signify a monotheistic or ultimate Supreme Being from which all other divine attributes derive, has been a subject of ecumenical discourse between Eastern and Western scholars for over two centuries. In Christian theology the word must be a personal and a proper name of God; hence it cannot be dismissed as mere metaphor. On the other hand, the names of God in a different tradition are sometimes referred to by symbols. The question whether divine names used by different religions are equivalent has been raised and analyzed. See also Taboos below.
Exchange of names held sacred between different religious traditions is typically limited. Other elements of religious practice may be shared, especially when communities of different faiths are living in close proximity (for example, the use of Om and Gayatri within the Indian Christian community) but usage of the names themselves mostly remain within the domain of a particular religion, or even may help define one's religious belief according to practice, as in the case of the recitation of names of God (such as the japa.The Divine Names, the classic treatise by Pseudo-Dionysius, defines the scope of traditional understandings in Western traditions such as Hellenic, Christian, Jewish and Islamic theology on the nature and significance of the names of God. Further historical lists such as The 72 Names of the Lord show parallels in the history and interpretation of the Name of God amongst Kabbalah, Christianity, and Hebrew scholarship in various parts of the Mediterranean world.

Let us suppose that there is a god and he/she/it wanted to contact all people of earth and spread his meaning.... And lets suppose that one day he did just that.... Do you suppose he would present himself as one being or as something each tribe of man could better understand.... I say that god would never lie to us over his appearance (which he probably doesn't have one nor would he have a sexual orientation or type) and I use "he" as a refference.... I think that god would appear to us just described in the bible as he appeared to Moses, as a power or fire and would never speak but put thoughts in your head by use of images.... So all the names of god are totally irrelevant to most men because of unfamiliararity and association with the name itself, and alone causing such chaos.... And how could man think there are more than just one god, and which god is the true god we seek.... So given the parodox presented in the god discussion alone I don't think god would mind at all if he does exist.... If you did not claim to follow any god or anything which claims to be a god that is a false god.... I truely don't see how an entity could ever hold that against you....
I love how some tell you that you are going to hell if your not babtized, or that if your gay your for sure going to hell.... Such exclamations are made by men and I do hope that you don't take them to heart and then wind up wrong in the end standing in front of the truth.... Man will tell you anything to have power over you....

Originally Posted by Quantime

Originally Posted by sigurdV

(0) Definition: By "god" is meant the cause of Existence.

No, not at all. In religious argument yes but we are scientific and based on evidence. The universe came into existence by spontaneity..

Oh yeah? Prove it!
IF you can do that then the only thing you have done
is giving god the name "spontaneity".

Originally Posted by Quantime

(1) For every x there is a (not identical to x) cause of x.

Only where there exists causality, as I have already said, 0 dimensions = no 4th dimension = no time. No time = no causality...

There never WAS, there IS no and NEVER WILL BE: NOTHING!
Of course you can say: " 0 dimensions = no 4th dimension = no time. No time = no causality"
but its no wizards formula adding existence to the concept!
Show an uncaused existing object and you win the argument!

Originally Posted by Quantime

(2) There is Existence.

Depends on the frame you are referencing, a 0 dimensional point that was everything could be classed as existence, but existence of what?.

Classed as existence by what? The point itself? Theres no point.
There are no points. Points are figments of imagination.
As are frames. (Unless we identify ourselves with them.)

Originally Posted by Quantime

(3) There is a god.

Only based on the acceptance of your previous reasoning which I have no informed you is false. Therefore, there is no god.

I agree that the conclusion depends on its premisses
but you didnt show causality to be broken and theres no use in trying to deny existence...
You must exist in order to deny existence!

Thank you for giving my proof some consideration. I appreciate that. You seem serious. Your serve

Originally Posted by KALSTER

This thread isn't about bashing theists, it is about naming and talking about common misconceptions among theists. It is not meant as an anti-theist propaganda piece, nor will it be allowed to develop into one. It is not meant to imply that these misconceptions are found in all theists, nor meant to imply that atheists are free of misconceptions about theists. Please stick to the topic.

Unfortunately a title that reads Misconceptions made by Theists, then goes on to list misconceptions that are expressed only by fundamentalists or the theistically ignorant is very explicitly bashing theists and is doing so in a thoroughly subjective, prejudiced way. I find that offensive and unbecoming of the aims and implicit ethics of the forum. If quantime's objective was to document the foolishness that stems from fundamentalist groups he has derailed his own thread by the implicit condemnation of all theists.

Originally Posted by Quantime

I wanted to take the liberty of listing some of the common misconceptions that I run into in religious debate and wanted to bring a few of them up here and for us all to share our own misconceptions that we encounter, then discuss them perhaps:

I fail to see what any of this has to do with theism. Many people come to forums like this with their "proof" that evolution, GR, big bang, whatever, is wrong. Only a tiny minority of them appear to have a religious basis for their argument. And, of course, one of the principal founders of Big Bang cosmology was a Roman Catholic priest.

Maybe the title should be changed to "misconceptions about religion made by atheists"?

Originally Posted by Quantime

The Big bang is postulated from observation to have been a 0-Dimensional point which then grew into the dimensions we recognize. Seeing as time is the 4th dimension, it could not exist as all that was, was a 0-dimensional point.

The big bang actually does not postulate a 0-dimensional point. Where did you get that idea?

Is this a common misconception of atheists?

Ok I'm seeing a strong barrage of opposition here so I am clearly challenging certain beliefs held by people here. Allow me to clarify the point of my initial post:

In argument both in the real world and on the internet, I often come across certain arguments by theists and certain creationists that make assumptions of science they have made with no understanding of the subject. One particular is evolution, taking one here for example 'If we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys'.

This kind of example is one, of the many that I have shared and pyoko have added also, I had wished for more but that did not seem to happen. My attempt in this question was to ask for other misconceptions that people experience in debate, that is all.

The thread then seemed to escalate by derailment after my absence and gone off topic. I returned after and posted:

Does anyone else have the feeling you shouldn't be alive? Out of all that matter, out of all those probabilities here I am listening to this.

Was a passive aggressive statement to show my discontent with how yet another discussion easily gets derailed by trolls or others for whatever reason. Kalster responded to this and my other post directly informing of my unhappiness with how often discussions can get derailed (for which I thank him).

Originally Posted by John Galt

Unfortunately a title that reads Misconceptions made by Theists, then goes on to list misconceptions that are expressed only by fundamentalists or the theistically ignorant is very explicitly bashing theists and is doing so in a thoroughly subjective, prejudiced way. I find that offensive and unbecoming of the aims and implicit ethics of the forum. If quantime's objective was to document the foolishness that stems from fundamentalist groups he has derailed his own thread by the implicit condemnation of all theists.

I could have been overly simplistic by changing the label in hindsight, but at the time it did not occur to me to be more specific, albeit if I could be specific anyway as I encounter these misconceptions not just with fundamentalist and theistically ignorant but in general, there was no 'bashing' or malevolent intent behind it, quite frankly I find that an insult by a moderator to make that assumption. I pondered the question before I asked it and asked for the purposes of seeing if there were more than I have experienced. I was simply curious as to other peoples experiences and intended NO malice or misdirection.

I also want to say that I don't appreciate being the target of a witch hunt based on a misunderstanding, perhaps you should consider that John, Strange and Harold before taking such an aggressive stance, and I would appreciate other moderators supporting me here as on the forum I have tried to be nothing but polite, considerate and relevant to discussion at all times, perhaps cold and to the point in some of my posts, my patience does wear thin sometimes but to take a stance on me for an innocent question, and let others who walk away with an army of worthless, off-topic posting and rhetoric violating forum rules frequently I find outrageous.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Quantime

The Big bang is postulated from observation to have been a 0-Dimensional point which then grew into the dimensions we recognize. Seeing as time is the 4th dimension, it could not exist as all that was, was a 0-dimensional point.

The big bang actually does not postulate a 0-dimensional point. Where did you get that idea?

Is this a common misconception of atheists?

It is one theory, based on how the big bang was incredibly hot and dense in a seemingly place of zero entropy, in an incredibly minute space, it is postulate in physics and maths to be a 'position in a system' in which by dragging or expanding that 0-dimensional point you get multiple dimensions, this is one attempt to simplify an explanation given by the Hartle-Hawking state:

Hartle

And to it being a 'misconception' is more like a theory Harold, which is completely different to 'misconceptions' which is misunderstanding put forth by certain theists in discussion.

Its easier using this analogy with people for sake of understanding than going into the technical details, which I do as best possible when asked. These theories are all still being developed and are based on evidence we have on the origins of the universe. They are a lot more credible and evidential than any counter argument theists defending 'god creating the universe' offer, which isn't really an argument at all. The '0-Dimensional point' is one of the few interpretations of the origin of the cosmos. Hartle-Hawking calls it a D-1 dimension, for simplicity and ease of understanding I refer to it as 0-dimension to people; an infinitely finite 'space' which we would, as humans, relatively call a point.

Originally Posted by Strange

I fail to see what any of this has to do with theism. Many people come to forums like this with their "proof" that evolution, GR, big bang, whatever, is wrong. Only a tiny minority of them appear to have a religious basis for their argument. And, of course, one of the principal founders of Big Bang cosmology was a Roman Catholic priest.

This is a completely redundant point Strange based on a misunderstanding. My point isn't about people on this forum as a whole, but misconceptions certain theists use in all walks of discussion, here sometimes in religious arguments in this sub-forum, other forums, real life, a friend of mine and her religious commune... it isn't based on 'the physics sub-forum', or 'the psychology sub-forum' on this very forum, which is why i was asking of others experiences with others misconceptions of science used in religious argument as a whole.

As I already stated, my thread was asking of the common misconceptions of scientific facts used by certain theists in discussion.

And to the point about the big bang theory being put forth by a Roman Catholic Priest, Charles Darwin was religious himself too during his discovery and writing of 'Origin of Species'. Again, that is taking something and twisting it that detracts from what I mean, whoever created these well established scientific theories now backed by countless evidence is irrelevant, my basis is that some theists today that I encounter DO have a misunderstanding and have misconceptions of those theories, I don't understand why you brought that point into it about it being a Roman Catholic creating the big bang theory. Numerology cults helped promote understanding of Pi when it was discovered and worshiped numbers, does that have anything to do with secondary school students not grasping pi? Of course not.

What I am saying is that there are certain misunderstandings that theists will put forward in an argument as though it is a fact, one for instance is saying 'Evolution is only a theory', which if they knew more would understand it is a theory but is backed by a mountain of scientific evidence.


All I am seeing now is even more derailing by members who should know better and see better and aren't even basing their argument on a solid foundation yet are going with the argument they have just made which is completely based on a misunderstanding. I am assuming that these arguments are based on a misunderstanding and rolling along with 'assuming' that misunderstanding is originally what I intended, as you can see from my responses that is not the case.

--------------

Someone puts forth a new point I reply to it, as you would expect from a discussion. If that point I was replying to was off-topic that wasn't my doing, but another as I already pointed out to KALSTER and other moderators once already, (to which he did reply and again I thank him), so you can tell I had already started to be tactful and polite about the whole derailment issue to start with, so I am hardly at fault here...

I find your lack of noticing that John Galt to be disturbing, and even more so do not appreciate haggling by a moderator who should already be aware of this. Here is my post on my pointing out my dissatisfaction of my thread being derailed:

Originally Posted by Quantime

This seems to be more and more common (thread derailment), what happened to the array of moderators we had? I know the scientific study of religion moderator has not been around for a while and it seems as though a lot of moderators are being quite lenient, I'm not sure if this is just me though. It would be interesting to see the boundaries on what is acceptable behaviour and what is not or an update these days as trolling posts or random off-topic 'joking' gains momentum in threads. I'm all for a bit of humour but sometimes a whole thread can be ruined because of a certain number of peoples responses.

One example of this is my wanting to reply to Strange in the 'The pure theist is rare' thread, to which after a week or two off the forum noticed that it had escalated between trolling and a bit of flaming with some ad hominem attacks going back and forth, I summise that Kalster shut it down for very good reasons, but it frustrated me a bit afterwards and it just seems to me that some members here aren't willing to discuss science or scientific study and just incite pointless off-topic dribble. I'm not condemning Kalsters choice I'm agreeing wtih it, I am just a bit upset with the trolls. Thank you to the members here who contributed to my question it has helped me, and thank you adelady for your stand in I appreciate it.

As you can see I was happy with the thread's death there and had got my answer, and thanked adelady and kalster for their stand in, help and input.

Thanks for your time in reading this.

Originally Posted by Quantime

What I am saying is that there are certain misunderstandings that theists will put forward in an argument as though it is a fact...

As you now admit, it is only a minority of theists who make such arguments. Others may make the same errors even if they are not theists.

I just don't understand why you want to connect a certain level of ignorance with theism in general. You might as well talk about arguments made by Gingers. Do you have any evidence that theists are more likely to make these erroneous arguments?

Maybe you want to catalogue arguments made by certain fundamentalists and literalists and provide detailed counter-arguments. But there are already plenty of resources like that already. Maybe we could just list useful sites for refuting biblical literalism?

PS. Warthog, Squirrel and Sigurd I will reply to you as soon as I know if this thread is shut down or not. Cheers.

PS. Warthog, Squirrel and Sigurd I will reply to you as soon as I know if this thread is shut down or not. Cheers.

Originally Posted by Strange

As you now admit, it is only a minority of theists who make such arguments.

Not a minority at all, some are more polite about it and others not so.

Others may make the same errors even if they are not theists.

Indeed and I inform them. A lot of theists however proceed to tell me science is wrong and that is where the misconceptions come in, again I inform them and I get the same response. Mostly the same response, some are again more polite and others not so.

I just don't understand why you want to connect a certain level of ignorance with theism in general.

If you take theism, and the varying levels of theism compared to scientific evidence you will find a lot of ignorance from theists than from scientists. Even theistic scientists can be ignorant of the facts and still believe the earth is 10,000 years old. This conveying of ignorance is not nowhere near as common with atheists and atheist scientists.

You might as well talk about arguments made by Gingers. Do you have any evidence that theists are more likely to make these erroneous arguments?

What has ginger hair got to do with theistic beliefs? The thing is being ginger isn't going to make you want to deny evolution because you don't like the answer.

Maybe you want to catalogue arguments made by certain fundamentalists and literalists and provide detailed counter-arguments. But there are already plenty of resources like that already. Maybe we could just list useful sites for refuting biblical literalism?

Perhaps yes, I just saw the forum to ask a question here from my own interaction with others other than by proxy. It is a good suggestion I will look into it, thank you.

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

my ADHD tends to have me overthink alot of things..
sometimes that shows up in my posts, with what appears to be disjointed thoughts..
i tend to post my thoughts in a condensed manner..i assume ppl know more than they do..
and yes my own humanity can sometimes get the better of me..forgive me in advance..

In that case I apologize for being so brash.

but..
i argue that as a scientist (and personal considerations) arent you responsible for making sure that you do not misunderstand? (im not saying you don't, just a comment on your comment about my 'style')

Yes you are right, I overlooked that. Again I assumed you were posting in a trolling fashion.

it seems to me that you are intelligent and thorough in your communication style..its just flavored with a 'Aint no one gonna convince me God exists' flavor..IOW there have been several times where you conveniently omitted a word or two of mine and have changed a couple to make it seem like my point was against yours when it was not..

Thank you for the compliment. I do get very righteous about the nobody is going to convince me in god, and that is based on the evidence and my frustration that a lot of people do not want to see that. If I have omitted some words it was not on my part to make you and I against each other I just pick up on the words that I want to go with to make my point, again that is perhaps a tad harsh of me sometimes but I do value that some points that people make do need choosing from the rest. I respect you as a person and mean no aggression or malice against you. I want to say again as I have to others that I can be cold and to the point often in discussion but this is by no means an attack on the person

Again to anyone reading, I am not bashing theists or the people themselves, I am questioning their beliefs and misunderstanings and challenging them with evidence. I am not initiating a personal attack on anyone at all, just their beliefs and misunderstandings on science.

Originally Posted by Quantime

Originally Posted by Strange

As you now admit, it is only a minority of theists who make such arguments.

Not a minority at all,

Really? I find that somewhat implausible. But maybe that is because I have never met anyone who makes these sorts of arguments. Except online and then, as I say, 99% are not religiously motivated (as far as I can tell).

One-Third of Americans Believe the Bible Is Literally True

Maybe there are more of them where you live (which seems unlikely; is Derbyshire a fundamentalist hotbed?)

What has ginger hair got to do with theistic beliefs?

In my experience, about the same as being religious has to do with being educated about science. But this would be biased by the fact that about the only people I have discussed religion with in the past few decades have been well-educated (degree or PhD level) engineers.

Originally Posted by Strange

Really? I find that somewhat implausible. But maybe that is because I have never met anyone who makes these sorts of arguments. Except online and then, as I say, 99% are not religiously motivated (as far as I can tell).

I'm sure that's true of this forum, but in the world a lot of theists are very ignorant on the issue. Some are not indeed, some accept evolution and some accept the big bang, many do. My point is a lot don't as well.

One-Third of Americans Believe the Bible Is Literally True

Maybe there are more of them where you live (which seems unlikely; is Derbyshire a fundamentalist hotbed?)

In places, faith schools are quite rife around here, and some faith schools outnumber non-faith schools. England has also appointed the construction of over 3,000 new faith schools, some have been interviewed and don't teach evolution thoroughly to the extent its pupils understand and accept it as truth, assuming of course the teachers are educated on the subject let alone accept it themselves is concerning. Plus my experiences with people in my community and even yes, online

What has ginger hair got to do with theistic beliefs?

In my experience, about the same as being religious has to do with being educated about science.

Unfortunately not here it and in many places in the world it doesn't. Science is under attack in America, the teaching of evolution is much debated in many American states and not taught at all. Most faith schools I know of in my area and indeed from discussing with other people on forums is that evolution is taught as 'theory', not fact. Which with the mountain of evidence is has proving it is disturbing. Not to mention across the world the same thing happening.

I've got to ask though strange, what stance do you take on all this? Are you OK with evolution not being taught in schools? Do you believe children should be a getting a thorough unbiased scientific education?

Originally Posted by Quantime

Again to anyone reading, I am not bashing theists or the people themselves, I am questioning their beliefs and misunderstanings and challenging them with evidence. I am not initiating a personal attack on anyone at all, just their beliefs and misunderstandings on science.

In no way have i thought of this thread as a theist bashing thread..
(being a theist..)

you have been respectfull and polite..

the title made me come here and post as it applies to both sides..(misconceptions made by atheists)

and the'ginger' comment is appropriate as it demonstartes a bias when it comes to theists..the claims made against theists are not limited to theists but includes the general population..there are ALOT of ppl out there who have the misconceptions you mention..not just theists..
this has been part of my motivation to post here..to show it is not just a theist thing and that both sides use misconceptions about the other..

when scientists (using the term loosley) argue from religions point of view, and when religico's argue from a science view..there is bound to be misconceptions..

science will never be able to prove God does not exist.
and religion will never be able to prove that he does..
all science can do is invalidate certain arguements..
all religion can do is share what they believe.

BTW
Quantime..

i havent had any reason to believe you do this but..
there are certain words that both parties use that do not mean the same thing..
'Theory' is the most obvious one..
'Evidence' is another..

most atheist i have heard argue use the word 'evidence' as a replacment for the word 'Proof'
most theist i have heard use it as 'clue' as the evidence is a clue to the conclusion..not proof of the conclusion.

there are lots of other words, but for sake of brevity, i will leave it there..
i have (and am) enjoying the discussin between us.

Originally Posted by Quantime

I've got to ask though strange, what stance do you take on all this? Are you OK with evolution not being taught in schools? Do you believe children should be a getting a thorough unbiased scientific education?

I'm not sure why it is relevant but, obviously, I think science and critical thinking should be taught in schools. Idiotic ideas like Creationism/ID could be used as an example of pseudo-science for this purpose.

And, in religious schools, I suppose people should be taught why there is no conflict between science (studying what the world is really like) and their faith.

I know of in my area and indeed from discussing with other people on forums is that evolution is taught as 'theory', not fact.

Well, of course, "evolution by natural selection" (or whatever) is a theory. And should be taught as such. It is a theory that explains the observed facts of evolution.

I too had no intentions of bashing anyone for any beliefs they may hold or even hold dear.... My point was that most religions spend so much time bashing others religions that I carry no interest in joining for that reason alone.... I consider such actions to be a sort of predjudice, which i'll have no part of.... "What one man believes" I feel he should hold in confidence and keep it to himself, and above by different names of god which brought up I was intending to show man does not do that.... Just a minor point I was trying to make.....
If there were a church I would join it would the Unitarian Universalist Church in Lafayette IN. whom exepts all denominations regardless of beliefs and they only get together as citizens and not to preach "which I love"

Hers a Quote from their policy....
We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote:
• The inherent dignity and worth of every person;
• Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
... • Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregation
• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
• The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
• Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

This church is about 56 miles north of where I am currently or i'd be there every sunday....
I do have family members who attend weekly....

Originally Posted by warthog213

This church is about 56 miles north of where I am currently or i'd be there every sunday....
I do have family members who attend weekly....

Can't speak for that particular church..
but whatever man creates can be corrupted..

Originally Posted by Strange

And, in religious schools, I suppose people should be taught why there is no conflict between science (studying what the world is really like) and their faith.

Is there no conflict betwwen science and faith? Thats news to me!

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Originally Posted by Strange

And, in religious schools, I suppose people should be taught why there is no conflict between science (studying what the world is really like) and their faith.

Is there no conflict betwwen science and faith? Thats news to me!

Well, there shouldn't be. Science attempts to understand reality in a formalised way. If there is a conflict between faith and (well-established) science then that implies a conflict between faith and reality; how can that make sense?

I suppose you can "believe" that gravity doesn't exist, but you will have the, not insignificant, disadvantage of being wrong.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Originally Posted by Strange

And, in religious schools, I suppose people should be taught why there is no conflict between science (studying what the world is really like) and their faith.

Is there no conflict betwwen science and faith? Thats news to me!

Well, there shouldn't be. Science attempts to understand reality in a formalised way. If there is a conflict between faith and (well-established) science then that implies a conflict between faith and reality; how can that make sense?

I suppose you can "believe" that gravity doesn't exist, but you will have the, not insignificant, disadvantage of being wrong.

Or you can believe Jesus is the Son of God then you also will be wrong.
There is often conflict between religious faith and science!
Do you really make sense? You seem to say there is and there isnt.

eshu

gesundheit

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by KALSTER

This thread isn't about bashing theists, it is about naming and talking about common misconceptions among theists. It is not meant as an anti-theist propaganda piece, nor will it be allowed to develop into one. It is not meant to imply that these misconceptions are found in all theists, nor meant to imply that atheists are free of misconceptions about theists. Please stick to the topic.

Unfortunately a title that reads Misconceptions made by Theists, then goes on to list misconceptions that are expressed only by fundamentalists or the theistically ignorant is very explicitly bashing theists and is doing so in a thoroughly subjective, prejudiced way. I find that offensive and unbecoming of the aims and implicit ethics of the forum. If quantime's objective was to document the foolishness that stems from fundamentalist groups he has derailed his own thread by the implicit condemnation of all theists.

I would agree, though I don't necessarily think that was his aim and didn't personally think that was his aim in starting it, as his subsequent posts seem to suggest and what The Squirrel seems to have gleaned from it as well.

We have known Quantime for a while and through different incarnations. We know he was a vocal theist himself on this very forum at one stage. I find it fascinating reading his thoughts and those of his respondents knowing their histories (NMSquirrel has his own thread discussing his own beliefs. I'll get stuck in there in due time). I think I'll change the title to "some theists", if that will read more agreeably?

@sigurdV: This is NOT the place to bring up your proof of god argument again. You had your own lengthy thread for that.

Originally Posted by Strange

Maybe the title should be changed to "misconceptions about religion made by atheists"?

That is not a bad idea, though I think that warrants it's own thread. I'll change the title of this thread to "some theists".

john Galt
if you choose to not be offended
then
no one can offend you

as/re eshu
when first zI came to these forums
I remarked to meteor wayne
(god bless his rotting carcase)
"for some people, wayne, brevity is a blessing
for you, on the other hand
I'm beginning to think it a curse"....
...................
that being said:
as re the conflicts within this thread,

"eshu"
seemed to say more'n enough

Originally Posted by sculptor

"eshu"
seemed to say more'n enough

Reading the red/black hat story, I agree.

I recently read that the probability of the random formation of the universe was one in a quintillion? I believe this could be used as objective evidence for intelligent design.

Originally Posted by shlunka

I recently read that the probability of the random formation of the universe was one in a quintillion? I believe this could be used as objective evidence for intelligent design.

Well another probabilistic outcome could as well have been one in a quintillion, and the next, and the next. The universe is a complex arrangement of Quantum Fluctuations all randomly distributed with a set number of laws and constants, within a framework with space-time these laws and Quantum Fluctuations along with matter and energy create everything we know of today. Speaking in terms of probability if you put so many particles in a corner and then let nature do its thing, eventually all the states would be occupied and you would see them all return to the corner because even though the possibilities are 'seemingly' infinite they are actually still a representative of a fixed number of outcomes/probabilities, our universe is one of them. No need for intelligent design.

It is the same argument of the puddle that looks at itself and says 'look how well I fit into this puddle, I must have been put here!'. Of course that might be over simplistic I'm not sure how another person would see that argument.

Originally Posted by Quantime

Originally Posted by shlunka

I recently read that the probability of the random formation of the universe was one in a quintillion? I believe this could be used as objective evidence for intelligent design.

Well another probabilistic outcome could as well have been one in a quintillion, and the next, and the next. The universe is a complex arrangement of Quantum Fluctuations all randomly distributed with a set number of laws and constants, within a framework with space-time these laws and Quantum Fluctuations along with matter and energy create everything we know of today. Speaking in terms of probability if you put so many particles in a corner and then let nature do its thing, eventually all the states would be occupied and you would see them all return to the corner because even though the possibilities are 'seemingly' infinite they are actually still a representative of a fixed number of outcomes/probabilities, our universe is one of them. No need for intelligent design.

It is the same argument of the puddle that looks at itself and says 'look how well I fit into this puddle, I must have been put here!'. Of course that might be over simplistic I'm not sure how another person would see that argument.

I am inclined to disagree with the puddle argument, it seems to be a false equivalence to me. Compared something coming from essentially 0 mass, multiplying it's mass/volume by a seemingly unquantifiable amount of times; with mass conveniently placed at random to encourage the development of planets, the existence of elements to provide basic needs for life to exist. With all these variables, quantum fluctuations provide a fairly weak argument against intelligent design. Though I am also not a physicist, and cannot speak of their validity.

Originally Posted by shlunka

Originally Posted by Quantime

Originally Posted by shlunka

I recently read that the probability of the random formation of the universe was one in a quintillion? I believe this could be used as objective evidence for intelligent design.

Well another probabilistic outcome could as well have been one in a quintillion, and the next, and the next. The universe is a complex arrangement of Quantum Fluctuations all randomly distributed with a set number of laws and constants, within a framework with space-time these laws and Quantum Fluctuations along with matter and energy create everything we know of today. Speaking in terms of probability if you put so many particles in a corner and then let nature do its thing, eventually all the states would be occupied and you would see them all return to the corner because even though the possibilities are 'seemingly' infinite they are actually still a representative of a fixed number of outcomes/probabilities, our universe is one of them. No need for intelligent design.

It is the same argument of the puddle that looks at itself and says 'look how well I fit into this puddle, I must have been put here!'. Of course that might be over simplistic I'm not sure how another person would see that argument.

I am inclined to disagree with the puddle argument, it seems to be a false equivalence to me. Compared something coming from essentially 0 mass, multiplying it's mass/volume by a seemingly unquantifiable amount of times; with mass conveniently placed at random to encourage the development of planets, the existence of elements to provide basic needs for life to exist. With all these variables, quantum fluctuations provide a fairly weak argument against intelligent design. Though I am also not a physicist, and cannot speak of their validity.

None of this made any sense at all. It smacks of word salad- an apologist well practiced in "sounding smart"while saying nothing of scientific value.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

@sigurdV: This is NOT the place to bring up your proof of god argument again. You had your own lengthy thread for that.

Is it wrong for me to oppose when somebody claims there is no proof of the existence of god? Cant I show him a proof?
Are there more things censored in here? Is there a list of things we are not allowed to prove?
Are you youreself claiming that it is impossible to prove there is a god?

Is it a theistic misconception to believe there is a proof of the existence of god?

Or is it an atheistic misconception to believe there is no such proof?

Is this a Scientific forum or a forum for preconceived notions?

For your information, and to all others as well, nobody has been able to point out any error in my proof!
Neither in this forum nor elsewhere. Instead they focus their anger on my definition of god (Any proof of the existence of x must include a definition of x.) and claim that it is not enough to have created this world in order to be its god...something more must be added, they say! Obviously they have not been able to prove that!

Hi John!
I also felt that the topic of this thread could have been better formulated and that "bashing" is not a scientific activity.
But... to collect misconceptions surely cant be all wrong even if its motive can be questioned.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by shlunka

Originally Posted by Quantime

Originally Posted by shlunka

I recently read that the probability of the random formation of the universe was one in a quintillion? I believe this could be used as objective evidence for intelligent design.

Well another probabilistic outcome could as well have been one in a quintillion, and the next, and the next. The universe is a complex arrangement of Quantum Fluctuations all randomly distributed with a set number of laws and constants, within a framework with space-time these laws and Quantum Fluctuations along with matter and energy create everything we know of today. Speaking in terms of probability if you put so many particles in a corner and then let nature do its thing, eventually all the states would be occupied and you would see them all return to the corner because even though the possibilities are 'seemingly' infinite they are actually still a representative of a fixed number of outcomes/probabilities, our universe is one of them. No need for intelligent design.

It is the same argument of the puddle that looks at itself and says 'look how well I fit into this puddle, I must have been put here!'. Of course that might be over simplistic I'm not sure how another person would see that argument.

I am inclined to disagree with the puddle argument, it seems to be a false equivalence to me. Compared something coming from essentially 0 mass, multiplying it's mass/volume by a seemingly unquantifiable amount of times; with mass conveniently placed at random to encourage the development of planets, the existence of elements to provide basic needs for life to exist. With all these variables, quantum fluctuations provide a fairly weak argument against intelligent design. Though I am also not a physicist, and cannot speak of their validity.

None of this made any sense at all. It smacks of word salad- an apologist well practiced in "sounding smart"while saying nothing of scientific value.

I disagree. Shlunka is right. Quantum fluctuations is a weak argument against intelligent design.

Consider Sigurd's proof of God: Assume everything has a cause, then define God as the cause, then that proves God exists. This has an obvious flaw since it requires God to have a creator. The god hypothesis really doesn't explain anything.

What does quantum fluctuations add to the situation? The universe was created by quantum fluctuations. Okay then, who created the quantum fluctuations? I really don't see how people can invoke quantum fluctuation and then feel they know any more about the subject than they knew before.

Harold, none of what you said makes any sense, either.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Consider Sigurd's proof of God: Assume everything has a cause, then define God as the cause, then that proves God exists. This has an obvious flaw since it requires God to have a creator. The god hypothesis really doesn't explain anything.

The obvious flaw was the assumption from the outset that everything must have a creator. Making an unsupported assumption to then base your logic on is clearly flawed and unscientific on any count.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

What does quantum fluctuations add to the situation? The universe was created by quantum fluctuations. Okay then, who created the quantum fluctuations? I really don't see how people can invoke quantum fluctuation and then feel they know any more about the subject than they knew before.

Again- same flaw. Assumption of more than one thing, here.
One is the assumption that a creator is required for any fluctuations. The second is that quantum fluctuation is, alone, responsible. Rather, given the COBE and WMAP data, what we see is evidence of very, very early fluctuations in space that facilitated clumping. Fluctuation is a normal property of fluid dynamics and no creator is needed whatsoever. At all. The next assumption was that these fluctuations are required for a required clumping of matter to make planets form. We have no basis for such an assumption because this state is the only state we can observe and know. However, if this did not occur, it's perfectly conceivable that a Universe with different properties could give rise to a different kind of life that would view its Universe as "clearly designed because only a divine creator could create such homogenous distribution and forcefully prevent the clumping of matter into making a cold and dark void filled Universe."

Every last bit of it was based entirely on too many assumptions that lean more toward confirmation bias than any kind of logic- much less scientific methodology.

Originally Posted by sculptor

john Galt
if you choose to not be offended
then
no one can offend you

This is self evident and is a principle I have followed for several decades. In this instance I chose to be offended. You can choose to have a problem with that if you wish.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Consider Sigurd's proof of God: Assume everything has a cause, then define God as the cause, then that proves God exists. This has an obvious flaw since it requires God to have a creator. The god hypothesis really doesn't explain anything.

Hi!
Ive been waiting for some serious thought. Yours is the first Ive seen. Congratulations!
Here comes my comment:

Why consider it a flaw? Note that we dont need gods of new kinds! What does it matter to the explanatory value if god is a single or complex entity? There is of course some mathematical interest but otherwise?
Compare with natural numbers. Let 1 be a number and if n is a number then the successor n+1 is also a number. Theres as many gods as natural numbers ...does that imply theres also transfinite gods?
The point is that what you call a flaw others can see as a value! Who is to decide?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Again- same flaw. Assumption of more than one thing, here.
One is the assumption that a creator is required for any fluctuations. The second is that quantum fluctuation is, alone, responsible. Rather, given the COBE and WMAP data, what we see is evidence of very, very early fluctuations in space that facilitated clumping. Fluctuation is a normal property of fluid dynamics and no creator is needed whatsoever.

If you are happy to believe that things can occur without a cause, you can believe that without discussing quantum fluctuations. What does the quantum fluctuation have to do with it? Why do atheists want to latch onto that as an argument against the existence of God? Is it a confirmation bias?

For someone who does think things need a cause, quantum fluctuation is just another name to give to the mystery, and doesn't really explain it. This is why I think it is a weak argument against creationism.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Harold, none of what you said makes any sense, either.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Consider Sigurd's proof of God: Assume everything has a cause, then define God as the cause, then that proves God exists. This has an obvious flaw since it requires God to have a creator. The god hypothesis really doesn't explain anything.

The obvious flaw was the assumption from the outset that everything must have a creator. Making an unsupported assumption to then base your logic on is clearly flawed and unscientific on any count.

The obvious flaw is that you cant read properly! It says "cause" not "creator".
Perhaps you are not aware that Science is based on the Principle of Causality
and that up to this day nobody has been able to prove the principle to be incorrect!

Read up some on the Philosophy of Science and Logic instead of presenting yourself
as a fool by making foolish assertions.

Lets for a second forget about Religion and only look at Science:
Then if the the Principle of Causality is correct there must be an infinitude of causes...
Is this a Scientific problem? What are the concequences? Can Science live with them?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

If you are happy to believe that things can occur without a cause

A cause does not mean a creator.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

For someone who does think things need a cause, quantum fluctuation is just another name to give to the mystery, and doesn't really explain it. This is why I think it is a weak argument against creationism.

Frankly, this would be better worded as "Creationism is a weak argument against... well, pretty much anything."

Originally Posted by sigurdV

The obvious flaw is that you cant read properly! It says "cause" not "creator".

Let's see:
"Consider Sigurd's proof of God: Assume everything has a cause, then define God as the cause,"
Yeah, ok- I cannot read. No, you cannot type. No, we cannot engage in ad homs.
You know what? Whatever.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Read up some on the Philosophy of Science and Logic instead of presenting yourself

Maybe you should read up on the posts before you do the same.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Consider Sigurd's proof of God: Assume everything has a cause, then define God as the cause, then that proves God exists. This has an obvious flaw since it requires God to have a creator. The god hypothesis really doesn't explain anything.

Hi!
Ive been waiting for some serious thought. Yours is the first Ive seen. Congratulations!
Here comes my comment:

Why consider it a flaw? Note that we dont need gods of new kinds! What does it matter to the explanatory value if god is a single or complex entity? There is of course some mathematical interest but otherwise?
Compare with natural numbers. Let 1 be a number and if n is a number then the successor n+1 is also a number. Theres as many gods as natural numbers ...does that imply theres also transfinite gods?
The point is that what you call a flaw others can see as a value! Who is to decide?

Okay, so there is an infinite series of gods, each one being the creator of the (n-1) god. It makes as much sense as anything else. My own view is that there are some things that are just beyond my comprehension, so I'll just leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

For someone who does think things need a cause, quantum fluctuation is just another name to give to the mystery, and doesn't really explain it. This is why I think it is a weak argument against creationism.

An observable phenomenon is a 'weak' argument against creationism?

You need to do better than that.

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

Originally Posted by Harold14370

For someone who does think things need a cause, quantum fluctuation is just another name to give to the mystery, and doesn't really explain it. This is why I think it is a weak argument against creationism.

An observable phenomenon is a 'weak' argument against creationism?

You need to do better than that.

Maybe I should say it is not an argument against creationism at all. It is just another phenomenon, which has nothing to do with creationism one way or another.

OOPS: Just realized I have been saying "creationism" when I mean "Intelligent design."

first..
I think it was a mistake to create another thread..the subject matter apples to both parties and should be in a single thread (now with two threads i am tempted to repeat my self..)

second.

Misconceptions made by theists:
(and atheist)
"There IS absolute, objective evidence/proof for God.."

they tend to argue on the atheist terms, which for this subject matter is self defeating..

actually i posted this for 'misconceptions by atheists'..

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I disagree. Shlunka is right. Quantum fluctuations is a weak argument against intelligent design.

What does quantum fluctuations add to the situation? The universe was created by quantum fluctuations. Okay then, who created the quantum fluctuations? I really don't see how people can invoke quantum fluctuation and then feel they know any more about the subject than they knew before.

It's not a single argument and not really an argument at all it is one part of our cosmological understanding in which the universe behaves, and that how the more we know about the universe the less 'God did it' make sense in a scientific framework or even a rational one to be more specific. Quantum Fluctuations are the random differences in the Quantum Field that says that a particle has both position and momentum, the more you know of one the less you know of the other, this means that even though a particle might be predicted to be 'here' it may well be 'over there' and it might not be moving and it may well be. This creates chaos at the atomic and sub-atomic level, but the random fluctuations of matter on a macro scale creates a more solid object in which we can identify; humans, plants, bacteria etc which are a more complex formation of quantum states.

The point is these Quantum Fluctuations have a set number of probabilistic solutions or 'states' sort of like a Cosmic Roulette wheel, eventually after so many quantum states you expect the same quantum states to repeat, seemingly at random at first but given many many many years, and a lot of space (in the range of a Googolplex) you would get strange things happening, it is probable that a person and the Quantum states they occupy to spontaneously appear on the moon. Incredibly unlikely but still a possible result. From the moment the universe came into existence along with the physical laws branching off from the 'super force' Quantum fluctuations of matter and energy, along with the laws and constants combined with space time (the ability for the Quantum systems to fluctuate) you get a cosmic game of roulette with this outcome of probabilities. If you were to start the universe again you'd get a totally different set of arrangements of Quantum Fluctuations in the same way you would get a different arrangement of results in a roulette game; it is all a result of probabilities and the law of large numbers says that eventually with a limit of possible results you will get repetitions. This universe is not old enough for a repetition, say another Earth evolving, yet has enough possible repetitions for this universe to have become what it is based on those parameters it started with, and as I have already noted on another post to you, the universe was at one point a D-1 dimensional 'space' with no time, no time for a causality. The question here then for creationists is 'well God must have made it start', but that again suggests that cause and effect - no time, no cause. And if you want to use higher dimensions you can't, you can't add extra causality, the higher dimensions (as some theists I argue with shrug off their shoulders with saying "he's in a higher dimension then") are explained in String theory as well which again has even less room for God and makes him even more an irrational conclusion as to not only 'its existence' but to its 'creating the universe' which again makes no sense based on the premise of science I just explained with.

Originally Posted by adelady

Does anyone else have the feeling you shouldn't be alive? Out of all that matter, out of all those probablities here I am listening to this.

No. But I do have the feeling that I am unbelievably lucky to be here at all. The odds against being born are pretty high, something like 70-80% of conceptions never make it to birth of a live baby. The odds against conception in the first place, let alone any particular conception, are even higher. Taken all together, the odds against any one of us having the chance to live the lives we do are astronomical. When anyone tells you to count your blessings, that should be the first one.

Even more so in my case. My mother had 9 late pregnancy miscarriages before I was born.( One even resulted in the baby just living long enough to be issued a birth certificate). If it hadn't been for the fact that she didn't quit trying and that a small town doctor worked tirelessly in order to figure out what kept going wrong, there wouldn't have been a 10th baby (me).

Originally Posted by Janus

Even more so in my case. My mother had 9 late pregnancy miscarriages before I was born.( One even resulted in the baby just living long enough to be issued a birth certificate). If it hadn't been for the fact that she didn't quit trying and that a small town doctor worked tirelessly in order to figure out what kept going wrong, there wouldn't have been a 10th baby (me).

it remains to be seen whether that is a good thing or not..

(joking)

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by shlunka

Originally Posted by Quantime

Originally Posted by shlunka

I recently read that the probability of the random formation of the universe was one in a quintillion? I believe this could be used as objective evidence for intelligent design.

Well another probabilistic outcome could as well have been one in a quintillion, and the next, and the next. The universe is a complex arrangement of Quantum Fluctuations all randomly distributed with a set number of laws and constants, within a framework with space-time these laws and Quantum Fluctuations along with matter and energy create everything we know of today. Speaking in terms of probability if you put so many particles in a corner and then let nature do its thing, eventually all the states would be occupied and you would see them all return to the corner because even though the possibilities are 'seemingly' infinite they are actually still a representative of a fixed number of outcomes/probabilities, our universe is one of them. No need for intelligent design.

It is the same argument of the puddle that looks at itself and says 'look how well I fit into this puddle, I must have been put here!'. Of course that might be over simplistic I'm not sure how another person would see that argument.

I am inclined to disagree with the puddle argument, it seems to be a false equivalence to me. Compared something coming from essentially 0 mass, multiplying it's mass/volume by a seemingly unquantifiable amount of times; with mass conveniently placed at random to encourage the development of planets, the existence of elements to provide basic needs for life to exist. With all these variables, quantum fluctuations provide a fairly weak argument against intelligent design. Though I am also not a physicist, and cannot speak of their validity.

None of this made any sense at all. It smacks of word salad- an apologist well practiced in "sounding smart"while saying nothing of scientific value.

You say this, yet you provide absolutely no evidence for your dogmatic assertion on my personal characteristics. In the future, please provide a scrap of evidence for your claims.

Originally Posted by shlunka

You say this, yet you provide absolutely no evidence for your dogmatic assertion on my personal characteristics. In the future, please provide a scrap of evidence for your claims.

I've already provided some scraps in the posts that followed that.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Consider Sigurd's proof of God: Assume everything has a cause, then define God as the cause, then that proves God exists. This has an obvious flaw since it requires God to have a creator. The god hypothesis really doesn't explain anything.

Hi!
Ive been waiting for some serious thought. Yours is the first Ive seen. Congratulations!
Here comes my comment:

Why consider it a flaw? Note that we dont need gods of new kinds! What does it matter to the explanatory value if god is a single or complex entity? There is of course some mathematical interest but otherwise?
Compare with natural numbers. Let 1 be a number and if n is a number then the successor n+1 is also a number. Theres as many gods as natural numbers ...does that imply theres also transfinite gods?
The point is that what you call a flaw others can see as a value! Who is to decide?

Okay, so there is an infinite series of gods, each one being the creator of the (n-1) god. It makes as much sense as anything else. My own view is that there are some things that are just beyond my comprehension, so I'll just leave it at that.

Explaining life is hard to do...so I dont try all the time. Enjoying life is also a worthy occupation.
Im not sure what is going on now in this thread. Is a debate on "Intelligent Design " taking place?

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Explaining life is hard to do...

yea..but it can be fun, and it excersises the brain..

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Explaining life is hard to do...

yea..but it can be fun, and it excersises the brain..

I agree with you, but this thread is about Theistic Misconceptions.

So let us not discuss The Theory of Life inside here. I have a thread for that.

I suppose its both fun and tragic reading, you will find me defending against a pack of Trolls.

They gave up in the end... Im a hardcracked nut

http://www.thescienceforum.com/biology/32323-theory-life-new-post.html

Not all theists are ignorant, irrational, dishonest, deluded.

Before I start many of you are already reading this as blah blah and some of you would of already made up your mind its not worth reading but maybe you don’t want to read it because your own Insecurity .
So guys I want to talk about the nonsense & misconceptions that some atheists will make and to show that one not all theists are ignorant and that a lot of anti-theists post on the internet are equally ignorant & Irrational and are often cheap shoots and try to paint all theists with the same brush and many post are not based on facts and are troll post at best.

Been Atheists does not make you smart it does not make you a scientist. Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities it is just that a belief it’s just an opinion.
Also you should consider some of the greatest Scientist in History where theists and some Atheists will even quote them or their work to base your point of view on.

Some Theist Scientist who most likely has a better understanding of the big bang or evolution then most people reading this. their names to consider are:

-Asa Gray work which is still pivotal work in botany.
- Louis Pasteur Inventor of the pasteurization method, a French chemist and microbiologist. He also solved the mysteries of rabies, anthrax, chicken cholera, and silkworm diseases, and contributed to the development of the first vaccines.
- Otto Hahn Cherman chemist and Luterhan who won the 1944 Nobel Prize in Chemistry
- Werner Heisenberg German theoretical physicist who made significant contributions to quantum mechanics, nuclear physics and quantum field theory.
- Sigmund Freud
- Albert Einstein need I say more
- J. Robert Oppenheimer father of the atomic bomb and the Nuclear age.

There are many more I could name and they all hold some sort of Religious belief and today many of you go to the doctors or lawyer and many of which are theists and you don’t even know it so next time you want to post some nonsense and try to paint all theists under the same brush and make out that they we are all are ignorant & irrational consider not all of us are irrational and that some of us just believe in god or gods on faith alone and if at the end of the day if all it does is give us a sense of peace in our lives then it should not worry or bother anyone or effect you.

So I ask you consider all of the above before you something that is not much better then trolling.

Thanks for reading please consider this.

Originally Posted by A rose by any other name

-- Otto Hahn Cherman chemist and Luterhan who won the 1944 Nobel Prize in Chemistry

A minor correction: Otto got the prize on false pretensions...the real discoverer of nuclear fission was Liza Meitner...a female!

Originally Posted by sigurdV

A minor correction: Otto got the prize on false pretensions...the real discoverer of nuclear fission was Liza Meitner...a female!

That doesn't seem minor- Could you expand on it, please?

Originally Posted by A rose by any other name

So I ask you consider all of the above before you something that is not much better then trolling.

Thanks for reading please consider this.

Then who would i have to pick on?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by sigurdV

A minor correction: Otto got the prize on false pretensions...the real discoverer of nuclear fission was Liza Meitner...a female!

That doesn't seem minor- Could you expand on it, please?

They worked on it together, until Lise was forced to flee Germany when Austria was annexed. Most people nowadays would say Meitner and Hahn should have shared the prize. Under pressure from the Nazis no doubt, she was not credited in Hahn's paper for which he received the prize. Unfortunately, he failed to give her proper credit, even after the war.

They were bombarding uranium with neutrons trying to make elements with higher atomic numbers, which do not occur in nature. Instead they got lighter elements. Hahn realized that fission had taken place, but did not understand why. He was a chemist, not a theoretical physicist. Meitner, in exile but still maintaining correspondence with Hahn, along with her nephew Otto Frisch were the first to come up with a theoretical basis.

It is a minor point as it relates to the discussion about theists and science. Meitner herself converted to Lutheranism as an adult in 1908.

Lise Meitner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by A rose by any other name

Not all theists are ignorant, irrational, dishonest, deluded.

Maybe not all exactly, but I would put the figure at 99%. The other 1% don't understand what theism really means. Theists have hoodwinked and dumbed down the whole world. Theism not only adds nothing to science but it also tries to throw a spanner in its works, resisting virtually every scientific discovery, and instead spreads its vulgar faith by terror. Science on the other hand spreads its word by reason based upon empirical observation. And yet when it suits them, theists are more than willing to take advantage of science.
Let's examine just a few reasons why theists are ignorant, irrational, dishonest and deluded. In addition I would say that they are downright dangerous. If they are not spreading their faith by physical terror (murder and rape as is happening in Mali at the moment), they are attempting to spread it by mental terror (threats of burning in hell for unbelievers, especially if they can get this drivel into the heads of children).

* They believe that people rise from the dead.
We can safely say that nobody who has died has ever risen from the dead, and that goes for all bogus saviours.

* They believe that their god is virgin born.
We can safely say that all who have ever been born have arrived by the result of carnal intercourse, unless with the help of science.

* They believe that jumping into a river brings salvation, as is the case at the moment with millions at the Kumbh Mela festival on the Ganges.
We can safely say that you are only likely to get a nasty infection by entering its very polluted waters.

* They believe in the mystical power of dead bones or ancient scraps of hair or nail in order to induce miracles.
We can safely say that the original owners were at least fortunate that bits of them survived the worms.

* They believe that DNA can be altered by prayer.
We can safely say that there is no evidence whatsoever for this, and it is nothing but wishful thinking.

* They believe that there was no physical death before the 'Fall of Man'.
This is so utterly absurd that it is worth examining further because there are several compelling scientific reasons for accepting the existence of physical death before the Fall:
1. Unchecked reproduction would lead to nightmarish levels of overcrowding in a matter of weeks or less.
2. Many organisms are obligatory predators.
3. Countless small organisms are routinely killed as larger organisms eat and walk.
4. Many organisms die of accidental deaths.
5. For physical immortality, absolutely all aging would need to cease.
6. Physical immortality removes the need for reproduction.
7. Vital ecological cycles cannot work if organisms do not die.

prefixiated ramblings:
on pigeon holes and assorted ideophilosologistic thoughts

theist,
athiest,
adtheists,
antitheists,
autotheists,
hypertheists,
contratheists,
distheists
imtheists
infratheists,
microtheists,
monotheists,
neotheists,
nontheists,
pantheists,
pertheists,
polytheists,
retheists,
protheists,
retrotheists,
subtheists,
supertheists,
transtheists,
and
ultratheists.
all peeking out of their pigeon holes
with a self limited perspective
not realizing
that they are all
looking at the same thing

Thank you Ox..i was waiting for someone to step into this one..

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by A rose by any other name

Not all theists are ignorant, irrational, dishonest, deluded.

Maybe not all exactly, but I would put the figure at 99%. The other 1% don't understand what theism really means.

clearly an opinion..
99% of atheist think they know what 99% of theist think..

Theists have hoodwinked and dumbed down the whole world. Theism not only adds nothing to science but it also tries to throw a spanner in its works, resisting virtually every scientific discovery, and instead spreads its vulgar faith by terror. Science on the other hand spreads its word by reason based upon empirical observation. And yet when it suits them, theists are more than willing to take advantage of science.
Let's examine just a few reasons why theists are ignorant, irrational, dishonest and deluded. In addition I would say that they are downright dangerous. If they are not spreading their faith by physical terror (murder and rape as is happening in Mali at the moment), they are attempting to spread it by mental terror (threats of burning in hell for unbelievers, especially if they can get this drivel into the heads of children).

should have went with 'Lumpy' instead of Ox..since you like to lump everyone into the same catagory..

I believe in God..
that makes me a Theist..right?

* They believe that people rise from the dead.
We can safely say that nobody who has died has ever risen from the dead, and that goes for all bogus saviours.

1, there have been numurous cases of ppl who have 'died' then come back to life..so much so that there is great debate as to the actual point of death..
2, this doesn't consider alternate beliefs concerning that issue..(some say yes jesus lived and did all that, but did not actually die)
3, and it is more acurate to say that they believe that 'one person' was risen from the grave..not any ppl..

* They believe that their god is virgin born.
We can safely say that all who have ever been born have arrived by the result of carnal intercourse, unless with the help of science

.

1,dunno if i believe that or not..
2, assumes a literal view of the bible
3, also includes a disclaimer..(unless)
4, 'we can safely say'....got a frog in your pocket?

* They believe that jumping into a river brings salvation, as is the case at the moment with millions at the Kumbh Mela festival on the Ganges.
We can safely say that you are only likely to get a nasty infection by entering its very polluted waters.

1, apperantly never been to a baptism..not only are there many forms, but in my experience they always say that it is only symbolic..
2, i have seen those video's..(ew..not me..not there..)
3, because i can't use numbers if i only have two..

* They believe in the mystical power of dead bones or ancient scraps of hair or nail in order to induce miracles.
We can safely say that the original owners were at least fortunate that bits of them survived the worms.

1, um..what??
2, where did this come from?
3, i don't believe that..
4, i mean..Wow..

*

They believe that DNA can be altered by prayer.
We can safely say that there is no evidence whatsoever for this, and it is nothing but wishful thinking.

1, I dont want to repeat myself.
2, I'm not gonna say it again.
3, so pay attention the first time..
4, see last response..

* They believe that there was no physical death before the 'Fall of Man'.
This is so utterly absurd that it is worth examining further because there are several compelling scientific reasons for accepting the existence of physical death before the Fall:

1, assumes a 'literal' interpretation of the bible,
2, assumes all who believe in God believe in this..(lumpy)
3, attempt to validate your own beliefs by getting everyone to agree with you.
4, see below..

one thing i have seen from atheist..(from theist also but more pronounced here from atheists..)
(extended #3 from above)

attempt to validate your self worth by getting others to agree to your point of view, utilizing scripts generated by peers (my friends say 'this' about 'that', included is the 'adoption' of an idea from our friends), and an <insert word here> belief that anything contrary to your point of view is not worthy of consideration..

sound familiar?? (notice my own anti-religious semetism(sp?))

when i meet some one, and i have a dislike for them, i have to scrutinize why/what it is that i don't like about them.
i cannot just leave it at 'because i do', i have to know what it is that bugs me so much..i have learned..%99 percent of the time, it is something i don't like about myself.

maybe your not mad at religion or God..but with that which is too sensitive to entertain, your own self worth..(translate; a PC and less acurate way of saying it is our feelings of 'worthlessness' that motivates us.(we dont want to feel it, so we avoid it at all costs))

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by A rose by any other name

Not all theists are ignorant, irrational, dishonest, deluded.

Maybe not all exactly, but I would put the figure at 99%.

Ah yes, when you have no facts, just make up some statistics. Always a good strategy.

The other 1% don't understand what theism really means.

Closely followed by the "no true scotsman" fallacy. Excellent.

Theists have hoodwinked and dumbed down the whole world.

Got any evidence for that? Islamic and Christian scholars were the main source of scientific study and education for a long time. And who was that guy who invented the big bang theory ? Oh yes, that's right. A Roman Catholic priest.

Theism not only adds nothing to science but it also tries to throw a spanner in its works, resisting virtually every scientific discovery, and instead spreads its vulgar faith by terror.

See above. If you are just going to make up facts, you clearly don't have a very strong case. Just a whole lot of anger.

I was going to comment on your weird set of beliefs that you apparently ascribe to every theist in the world (or maybe only 99% of them). But what's the point. It is irrelevant. You obviously have some pretty irrational beliefs of your own.

Originally Posted by A rose by any other name

Some Theist Scientist who most likely has a better understanding of the big bang or evolution then most people reading this. their names to consider are:

-Asa Gray work which is still pivotal work in botany.
- Louis Pasteur Inventor of the pasteurization method, a French chemist and microbiologist. He also solved the mysteries of rabies, anthrax, chicken cholera, and silkworm diseases, and contributed to the development of the first vaccines.
- Otto Hahn Cherman chemist and Luterhan who won the 1944 Nobel Prize in Chemistry
- Werner Heisenberg German theoretical physicist who made significant contributions to quantum mechanics, nuclear physics and quantum field theory.
- Sigmund Freud
- Albert Einstein need I say more
- J. Robert Oppenheimer father of the atomic bomb and the Nuclear age.

Hi there nice to meet you

First of all you misplaced Einstein, he does not belong in that list (see his letter to Eric Gutkind).
Second, when these geniuses were alive the world was a more religious place, often many many people were religious in those times. Charles Darwin himself was theist during his creating of his book 'the origin of species' it is likely that they also held different political viewpoints, that doesn't make their achievements any more or less credible or that it has an effect on their ability to resonate complex new concepts and ideas.

Being theist doesn't threaten your mental cognition in understanding how the universe works, those people might have been better at seeing the world and being intellectual but not every person exposed to religion will be the same as them. Although studies have shown a correlation with atheism and intelligence, so that isn't to be ruled out by name dropping famous scientists who were theist.

There are many more I could name and they all hold some sort of Religious belief and today many of you go to the doctors or lawyer and many of which are theists and you don’t even know it so next time you want to post some nonsense and try to paint all theists under the same brush and make out that they we are all are ignorant & irrational consider not all of us are irrational and that some of us just believe in god or gods on faith alone and if at the end of the day if all it does is give us a sense of peace in our lives then it should not worry or bother anyone or effect you.

It's living a delusion though isn't it. Believe what you want that's fine, its just adding comfort because you can't handle life and its challenges. I know as I have been there, losing God did not swing by my personality and leave me without dents, it made me more cynical and also skeptical. It had its benefits and its costs. You see the way you phrased that shows that what I am saying is having a personal effect on you in that you are feeling very threatened, as if your way of life is under attack, this is support for the God/Ego theory that god is really your ego and it goes to show that it is, this is me digressing however. This is not a personal attack but an opinion on the observation that theism has a fundamental flaw in that by having God you submit a part of yourself to understanding the universe and of emotional understanding of yourself and your adeption to dealing with life's challenges without relying on a supernatural deity or belief. This may not be the case for all theists but I am willing to postulate there is a strong correlation corresponding to what I just said.

So I ask you consider all of the above before you something that is not much better then trolling.

Not really trolling is it? By the same merit we can class your response also as trolling.

Thanks for reading please consider this.

You're welcome, I hope you haven't taken this personally or gain anger from it it is my observation as an atheist once theist knowing exactly where you are coming from. I don't say that in arrogance or condescension either I say it in understanding.

Originally Posted by Strange

Theists have hoodwinked and dumbed down the whole world.

Got any evidence for that? Islamic and Christian scholars were the main source of scientific study and education for a long time. And who was that guy who invented the big bang theory ? Oh yes, that's right. A Roman Catholic priest.

I think he is referring to those certain religious groups that we all know about, such as the Catholic Church and their oppression to scientific development over the ages not to mention the Islamic equivalent at the time of Mohammed. Don't wildly exaggerate his exaggeration of religious believers.

Originally Posted by Strange

Theism not only adds nothing to science but it also tries to throw a spanner in its works, resisting virtually every scientific discovery, and instead spreads its vulgar faith by terror.

See above. If you are just going to make up facts, you clearly don't have a very strong case. Just a whole lot of anger.

He is again referring to certain religious groups and certain religious individuals that do so. There is evidence for some, you will want to see the 'Boring Science' thread that I linked some evidence to with creationist textbooks for example.

You obviously have some pretty irrational beliefs of your own.

I wouldn't say so, just exaggerating some a little, hardly not guilty yourself of that either Strange nor am I

Originally Posted by A rose by any other name

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities it is just that a belief it’s just an opinion.

False.
As you said, atheism is a rejection of belief. It's not a belief in itself. And it's hardly "just an opinion" since there's no supporting evidence. Is my failure to believe in 11-metre tall cats living in the post box outside my house "just an opinion"?

Some Theist Scientist who most likely has a better understanding of the big bang or evolution then most people reading this. their names to consider are:

- Albert Einstein need I say more

Fail. Einstein was not a theist.

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.